Article Tools

A panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a petition for emergency relief filed on behalf of 10 Santa Barbara News-Press reporters fired for union organizing. The panel majority ruled that to order these workers re-instated would pose “a significant risk” to News-Press owner and publisher Wendy McCaw’s First Amendment rights. As publisher, two of the panel’s three judges ruled, McCaw wields ultimate authority over the newspaper’s content. But interestingly, the union drive — for which the workers were fired in February 2007 — emerged out of a struggle by News-Press writers to protect themselves from McCaw’s editorial intrusions over news content.

Workers elected the Teamsters to represent them and sought to negotiate ways to protect the paper’s — and their own — “journalistic integrity” at the bargaining table. In addition, the panel majority concluded that if McCaw were forced to rehire the 10 fired employees, the paper’s content would inevitably be affected. However, one dissenting judge countered that the workers were fired only after embracing the union cause — a federally protected activity. By allowing McCaw to use the First Amendment as a shield, the panel majority was effectively exempting her and the News-Press from obeying federal labor laws.

The case arose after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sought emergency relief on behalf of the fired workers, ordering McCaw to hire them back. (They were fired for hanging a banner over a freeway overpass exhorting motorists to cancel their News-Press subscriptions as part of a union-organized effort to pressure McCaw to the bargaining table.) McCaw appealed and won in federal district court in Los Angeles. The NLRB then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court. The NLRB could still request that the entire Ninth Circuit Court bench hear the case.

The ruling does not affect, however, the finding by NLRB Judge William Kocol — after a two week hearing — that the News-Press violated federal labor law by firing the workers in question. Kocol also ordered McCaw to rehire these workers with back pay. (Kocol did not, however, seek emergency relief on the fired workers’ behalf.) McCaw has appealed that decision to the entire National Labor Relations Board. Given that there are only two members of that five-person body — and Congressional Republicans have thus far blocked President Barack Obama’s appointees — it’s uncertain when that case will be heard. Next week will mark the third anniversary of the mass firings that triggered this lawsuit.

It is a strange ruling, in that the firings were apparently based on McCaw's desire to suppress free speech and/or reportorial honesty. Yet the 9th Circuit Court cites McCaw's free speech rights in their ruling. The most unfortunate aspect of McCaw's ownership of the News-Press is that her ill-will regarding valid journalism has rendered the newspaper worthless and irrelevant as a source of information. As long as McCaw owns the SBNP it will have virtually no value. It would be pointless for the fired employees to try to take this case to the Supreme Court because that body is politically hostile to unionizing issues. Sympathy only for corpoRATization is killing our nation. R.I.P. for democracy and the American Dream.

I don't really have a side in this because I don't know enough about the issues. That being said, from a legal perspective, this is very tricky because most people directly associate the 1st amendment with free speech in all cases. While that is true, what is clearly not protected is having someone work for an organization and espouse beliefs that are not in line with the organization. The publisher of a newspaper has the right to hire or fire journalists that publish reports in the same tone that the newspaper desires or has established. Also, what seems to be clearly true based on judge Kocols findings, there was a clear violation of federal labor laws for firing them based on organizing with a union. You can fire people for not saying what you like, not for organizing.

The real problems with the ruling are: 1) McCaw is using the First Amendment as a sword, not a shield, saying she can retaliate against anyone who dares even question or wish to negotiate over editorial issues, even though expression of that desire in the union context is protected and not a valid basis for discipline, 2) the court majority overlooks McCaw's venom only emerging when the union did, showing that her retaliatory firings (and there were 8 at stake in this case, not 10) were about illegal anti-union animus, and 3) the majority was mistaken in assuming that the mere reinstatement of reporters somehow encroaches upon McCaw's free speech, when the truth is, and the well-established law is, that she would be as free to publish and not publish what she wants even after a reinstatement order. The court comes close to saying that the First Amendment licenses her to violate federal labor law, and that is clearly not correct.

What I find strange is that every argument against Ms. McCaw presupposes the News-Press was worth reading in the first place. For as long as I have lived in Santa Barbara and as long I have visited this place (going on 28 years now), the News-Press rarely had an article worth reading, or an expose worthy of being called journalism. Small town newspapers read like advertisements and endorsements for their communities. That's not news. That's also not the point.

What I don't find strange is the 9th Circuit affirming Ms. McCaw's ability to run her company as she sees fit, union notwithstanding. Did not the article state the union was to be formed to control content, not to organize labor?

This is one case where I wholeheartedly endorse the free market. It gives us all the freedom to not buy the News Suppress. Hopefully to the point where an honest journalist will purchase the paper. I miss reading it.

Huh? I think SB needs a "new press"....A whole new News Paper.A new name.How about the SB Tide or The SB OutlookHmmmmThe Fish Wrapper?...nah...we already have that at the News Press.HmmmmThe Spinnaker Press....The NavigatorThe SB Compass

Crackhead! Is that you? The only thing less original than some of the posts here is you, complaining about lack of originality. Again. So you're about three steps down the ladder of originality. Snooze on, dude.

Cracko, I detected a note of sarcasm, after a thorough study of your prior posts (under the clever pseudonym "Krakatoa"). How do you pronounce that? If you truly were being sincere, my humble apologies to you.

We all have the choice of sitting by and saying "what a shame", or of doing what my family did when Queen Gwendolyn and Prince Consort Arthur Von Wendyburger first started behaving badly: Cancel the subscription to the SB News-Depressed and get your news elsewhere.

All the SBNP has ever been is a fishwrap, and their idea of news has always reflected the rank and file rich establishment of Santa Babylon. And that's fine, if that is what they want to print and who their target audience is, that's A-OK.

And I don't have to read it...no one does.

While it is disappointing that once again, big bucks and influence prevai and Wendy gets to manipulate the news to fit her viewpoint.The good news is that all of us have the power to vote with our checkbooks and break this tyrant with the sheer force of economic will. Read any one of the other local publications, or buy the LA Times or the New York Times or WHATEVER. DON'T buy the News-Suppress.

My mother was a 35 year subscriber to the NP, and canceled her subscription when the Queen started flexing her financial muscles and abusing her employees..and that was really hard on my Mom. She was frail, housebound, and she loved her morning paper. Yet she knew (and she and my Dad raised their kids to know) that if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. One must live with integrity and have the courage of one's convictions.

What Wendy did to those reporters and other employees was wrong. The way she has terrorized her employees and independent contractors is wrong. We cannot stand by and allow someone to beat up on someone else, then sit by, wring our hands and say "what a shame", then draw the curtains and turn up the stereo and pretend nothing is going on.

One name: Kitty Genovese. Would any of us want to be the person who COULD have saved her, and chose to ignore her cries for help because we couldn't be bothered?

Of COURSE this is not an actual murder...I KNOW that, but the culture which allows violence, bullying, and intimidation against others is alive and well in many sectors of society. We simply can't be bothered.

I find it sad when we celebrate and recognize those who stand up and defend the rights of others to live peaceful, law-abiding lives free of tyranny. This is because this behavior should be the norm instead of the exception. It should be culturally commonplace to stand up for the little guy and for what's right, even when it isn't politically correct or popular or safe.

BTW, the Queen does not look physically healthy at all and isn't aging well. Could it be because she is rotten from the soul on outward?

Our website (and others throughout the US) have been targeted by Spammers who actually take the time to go through the registration process and then manually add their silly messages.

The method can't be automatically blocked because until their spam appears they are no different from any other registered user.

Although we make every effort to quickly remove the ads, they tend to target us in the wee hours of the morning when we are short staffed; helpful readers may alert us by emailing: webadmin@independent.com.

Holly pointed out that Wendy does not look well anymore or now. Money cannot buy happiness.

Hard to believe that she could have done so much good with all that money, helped others, and enjoyed a trouble free life for herself. Hard to say what has motivated her to be such a miserable person. And why did she choose Santa Barbara?

"i wonder if there is anyone in SB that still likes wendy..." -randomgoleta-

Sure they do! Remember about two years ago when the News-Press published the list of its employees who signed their allegiance to Wendy McCaw? Oh wait, is it possible that if they HADN'T signed their names to that list there would be retribution by Wendy?